Heidegger

I don't understand how science possesses Dasein in the same way that human beings possess Dasein.

That's not what I meant. Anyways, I'm saying that Human beings are the only beings that possess Dasein (so far as we know) but Heidegger is not saying that Human beings are the only beings that can possess Dasein. I mean there is the possibility that we create an AI which possesses Dasein which doesn't imply that they are human. However, they may be human because they are designed with Dasein through human phenomenology. It's a complicated business, however I think of Dasein more as a quality that a thing possesses more than something that is strictly human and created by humans.

Humans are the only Dasein we know but it's not inconceivable that there are other Dasein in the universe. If an alien is sentient then it would be Dasein

Heidegger would never put it this way, but you could consider Dasein to be "the self" + the objects with which the self is concerned. His problem with thinking of man as being a "self" or a "soul" or a "consciousness" is that this misleads us into thinking that our essence is something that is fully interior and separated from the "outside" world. For Heidegger, our being is not something that can be reduced to a metaphysical soul or a materialist projection of nerves in the brain. "Dasein" solves this issue by making it so that a "subject" and the "objects" it perceives become one thing. There is no pure thought. You always think of something (this is called intentionality in phenomenology), you are always inextricably bound up in the things that make up your world. Your mode of being is there-being, always tied to a place, always tied to a disposition and a mood--NEVER abstracted. When you talk about the self as an abstract entity (generalized for the sake of philosophical discussion), you have already covered up the real nature of how man fits into the world, and no amount of discussion will fix this mistake because it is at-bottom already mislead.

Can anybody explain to me the purpose of phenomenology? Has there ever been any valuable insights or discoveries associated with it?

>valuable insights or discoveries
kind of a loaded question, but the Heidegger scholar Hubert Dreyfus argued in the 1960s that the AI paradigm of representing the world via code would never lead to truly intelligent AI and turned out to be right. AI is a somewhat phenomenological field now. Same goes for neuroscience--we can't just brute force mathematics into representing consciousness and instead have to think about how to explain our EXPERIENCE of the world.

like any area of philosophy, phenomenology just gives us a new vocabulary and outlook to describe something. Phenom leads us out of a lot of the Kantian dead-ends of the transcendental ego and striving for "perfect" representation and all that, and if science or sociology or whatever can appropriate its approaches for its own ends, then great

>AI is somewhat phenomenological now

??

No it's not

Posting classicc

youtube.com/watch?v=siTuxWB5eY0
youtube.com/watch?v=_HZ5O5Orgcg
youtube.com/watch?v=Aq0AkITSANQ
youtube.com/watch?v=Wu6Nz2Zx_qs
youtube.com/watch?v=vzxXX842Pp8

there aren't any computer scientists i know of who are implementing a phenomenological intelligence, no, but i meant that phenom can at least give perspectives about how intelligence doesnt work. even if most of ai is machine learning right now, there is elements of phenom in that

Apart from what said, there's also some specific reason why your second question can almost certainly answered with a no. The first purpose of phenomenology is not to bring or build some new knowledge or understanding. The first purpose is a movement backwards. Back from what science and reason say. Back from knowledge itself, actually. Phenomenology is, at least in its beginning, a reaction that tries to uncover things themselves, since what we think about them and know about them (and about ourselves) cover them (and us).
There's a very simple example that Merleau-Ponty uses, which is anger. We can define anger, and we can rely on science to tell us what happens when someone is angry. Science will talk about brain and neurons and body temperature, and traditional philosophy will define anger in terms on soul and body. Now if we canna know what anger itself actually is, we better describe its outburst, describe what we feel when we suddenly become angry, or/and what we realize when we look at an angry guy or hear his screams through the door.
This may seem obvious, and I guess it is. However in terms of philosophy it's still something "new", an effort to think and understand things without relying on the preconceived discourses that usually determine in advance the meaning of everything.

heidigger is my favorite red pilled philosopher

here he is BTFOing marxists

youtube.com/watch?v=OxmzGT1w_kk

good stuff, haven't seen this before

Oh okay, interesting

This is interesting because it seems totally subjective and therefore somewhat pointless. I'm thinking of your example of anger here. If you try to describe "how you feel", you either resort to talking about physical things, or you start talking nonsense. The subjective experience of things is necessarily prevented from being shared isn't it? I mean that's what identifies it as experience. You can only share physical and ideological content, the content which is abstracted from that is undefinable

>you either resort to talking about physical things, or you start talking nonsense. The subjective experience of things is necessarily prevented from being shared isn't it? I mean that's what identifies it as experience. You can only share physical and ideological content, the content which is abstracted from that is undefinable

Well, you're kinda right, but in the experience itself, things are not so clear. When I get anrgy, I cannot clearly distinguish between physical manifestations of anger and other psychological or abstract stuff. I'm more thinking of Merleau-Ponty here, but Heidegger would agree too : we do not experience ourselves in terms of "mind and body". We are a single thing that is, paradoxically, both fleshy and mental.

The result is that there's an issue with language itself, since words can either have a very physical meaning (I get angry, my body temperature raises) or a more abstract, rational meaning (when I get angry, my mind loses control over my body). The way phenomenology addresses this issue is (as you see with Heidegger) by trying to build a new language that would be able to describe existence in its weird unity. It can be neologisms (Heidegger) or, maybe in a less tedious way, extensive use of metaphors.

This is probably also the reason why phenomenology can be regarded as nonsense or gibberish. But after all it only expresses an effort to use language in a way that's not flawed by the distinction between mind and body. An example could be the word "flesh", which is not as limited as the concept of "body", and therefore is more useful to describe our experience. Merleau-Ponty also analyzes the adjective "syrupy" to show that a "definition" would be inevitably too restrictive. Get rid of definitions and demonstrations ; use metaphors and description. It's definitely not a philosophy for scientists.

I learned it as "being in the world." It's fairly easy to understand in context but hard to define in words, as Heidegger liked to make up words as to get rid of preconceived notions that come with any other words used to describe existence, like "consciousness," etc.

god just knowing a little bit of heidegger will get you so much pussy i'm using some basic things i learned right now and this girl is sending smiley face after smiley face

heidegger draws dasein

thinkingthroughimages.wordpress.com/2012/05/12/19/

I'll re-read one of my old philosophy notebooks that I had when I took a Philosophy course on existentialism tomorrow morning, but
>Dasein
>Not worrying about the more hip Heideggerian term "Das Man"

I get it.

i think its self evident he couldnt express himself or write properly at all

heidegger = shit
I mean, he's not the most noxious philosopher out there (sartre, derrida and nietzsche might take the cake) but the sheer amount of effort you'll have to put in to even understand what this senile nazi is trying to say makes it even more of an intellectual poison
stick to analytical philosophy (or better yet, drop philosophy entirely and stick to science)

wew lad

bump.

>drop philosophy
This would result in also leaving science behind, since you can't decide anything or stick to any believe without taking some premises as given.

A decent amount of the top people in the field is convinct of it being impossible to create AI without a genetic algorithm, which interacts with "his" environment.

i wouldn't say drop philosophy entirely. but i think life experience should prelude reading philosophy. only the matured mind can properly sift through the shitpile that is western philosophy.

no it actually means "the one" (Das Ein)